Only Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented..
July 19, 2005. IT’S A BOY! Everybody thought George Bush the Elder was so shrewd for nominating David Souter because he had practiced law for many years without leaving any record of it but a few doodled napkins. He was the "stealth candidate."
That didn't prevent the Dems from getting alarmed, but when the dust cleared the Supreme Court had one more liberal weenie mediocrity on the bench. Just like George planned!?
Now it's a bunch of years later, and George The Younger has an absolutely golden -- no, make that platinum -- opportunity to do what his father and even Ronald Reagan couldn't. He has a solid majority in the senate, a half bushel of ancient judges to replace on his watch, and so what does he do? He reaches into the old trick bag and pulls out another name with a barely visible record, the only shock being that the candidate doesn't wear a skirt (He's supposed to replace the nonentity in a skirt nominated by Reagan, the one who turned out to be yet another liberal weenie mediocrity.)
Nominee John Roberts sounds wired in to the DC establishment, though, according to the Post:
In his years as a lawyer, Roberts, 50, proved himself an affable and measured member of the Washington legal establishment. But his short tenure on the bench has meant fewer written opinions that can be parsed for his philosophy.
"He is a Washington lawyer, a conservative, not an ideologue," said Stuart H. Newberger, a lawyer and self-described liberal Democrat who has argued cases against Roberts.
He put in his time advising the Bush legal team in Florida during the battle over the 2000 presidential election and has often argued conservative positions before the court -- but they can be attributed to clients, not necessarily to him.
That includes a brief he wrote for President George H.W. Bush's administration in a 1991 abortion case, in which he observed that "we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled.
Roberts won the case -- Rust v. Sullivan -- in which the Supreme Court agreed with the administration that the government could require doctors and clinics receiving federal funds to avoid talking to patients about abortion.
When the D.C. Circuit refused to reconsider a three-judge panel's ruling protecting a rare California toad under the Endangered Species Act, Roberts dissented -- gently.
"To be fair," he wrote, the panel "faithfully applied" the circuit court's precedent, but a rehearing would "afford the opportunity to consider alternative grounds for sustaining application of the Act that may be more consistent with Supreme Court precedent."
That's about all we have to go on for now. Few written opinions, an engaging manner, liked by liberals, tactful to excess (if verbiage counts), and no footprints leading to anything as damning as a philosophy. Does the word "stealth" still seem ominously relevant? Oh. And did we mention he went to Harvard and Harvard?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to provide contact information…